US deserter steps forward in Sweden, explains 28 years AWOL

[QuickZ06]

A man who deserted the U.S. Air Force in 1984 recently revealed himself to his delighted family and explained how he lived under an assumed name for 28 years in Sweden.

David Hemler, who was one of the eight most wanted fugitives by the U.S. Air Force, told the truth about himself to Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, and talked about his life as a government worker who is married with children.

Hemler deserted when he was 21 because he became disillusioned from the military, he told the newspaper. He went AWOL in October of 1984 and hitch-hiked from an Air Force base in Augsburg, Germany to Stockholm. He built himself a life in Sweden where he didn't tell anyone his true identity.

"It was hard, but after a while I began believing my own, strange story," Hemler, 49, told the newspaper.

He said wanted to tell his story in his own words and the time was right because, his third daughter turned two and could go to day care, so his wife would be better able to cope if he was arrested, Reuters reported.

He first contacted his U.S. family four weeks ago, speaking to his brother Thomas, the news agency reported.

"I heard immediately it was David, even if he had a strange European accent after all these years," Thomas Hemler, who lives in New Jersey, was quoted as saying.

He said he asked questions to confirm the man of the phone was indeed his brother David. Reuters reported members of his U.S. family in the are planning to visit him in Sweden.

Hemler said his political views of the military were changed when he became a pacifist. With that he walked away from the Air Force base without permission.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/u-deserter-steps-forward-sweden-explains-28-years-165037706.html

[mad cow]

I think that the whole concept of "contract" might be confusing to you.

[Kylie]

I think that the whole concept of "contract" might be confusing to you.


Name me one other job that will put you in the brig if you quit.


I can't think of any off the top of my head. At least not any that aren't part of the .gov.

[QuickZ06]

I think that the whole concept of "contract" might be confusing to you.

Well I added more to what I said but it deleted everything, fml. But does it seem odd that they have "contracts" for something that is voluntary?

[QuickZ06]

And you do realize, in that contract they have the powers to change it while you can do nothing about it right? Does not seem like a fair contract to me. But like you said, I don't know much on this subject :rolleyes:

[RonRules]

Name me one other job that will put you in the brig if you quit.


I can't think of any off the top of my head. At least not any that aren't part of the .gov.

Apple China? (Foxcon)

[talkingpointes]

Apple China? (Foxcon) Can you provide a link to prove it ?

[mad cow]

Well I added more to what I said but it deleted everything, fml. But does it seem odd that they have "contracts" for something that is voluntary?

All contracts are voluntary,or they should be

[FindLiberty]

They'll thank him for coming forward before it gets real ugly...
Waterboard info-extraction!
Then firing squad for him, family, kids, friends, neighbors and everyone he's spoken to.
(or a CIA hit if he does not do the "right" thing.)

As this dominates the MSM news, what important story is getting buried?

just kidding.. Good luck Dave. You did the right thing over two decades ago!

[RonRules]

Can you provide a link to prove it ?

While I look, have a look at this:
"Foxconn is reportedly forcing employees to sign a pledge, promising that they will not commit suicide."

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/press-here/Foxconn-Forces-Employees-to-Sign-No-Suicide-Pact-121396179.

That would be one way to leave I guess.

[mad cow]

Name me one other job that will put you in the brig if you quit.


I can't think of any off the top of my head. At least not any that aren't part of the .gov.

I can think of several million off the top of my head,here's one

If you contract with me to build you a house for $100,000 and I take your money and blow it in Vegas instead,should I be
"thrown in the brig"?

[talkingpointes]

While I look, have a look at this:
"Foxconn is reportedly forcing employees to sign a pledge, promising that they will not commit suicide."

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/press-here/Foxconn-Forces-Employees-to-Sign-No-Suicide-Pact-121396179.

That would be one way to leave I guess.

I would think going to war is usually going to end in suicide before death in combat or friendly fire. 18 vets commit suicide everyday in the USA, USA, USA.

[QuickZ06]

I would think going to war is usually going to end in suicide before death in combat or friendly fire. 18 vets commit suicide everyday in the USA, USA, USA.

Yep, more troops are dying from suicide than from the wars. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.

[ganderif]

Wow I might be alone in hoping he goes to jail. He signed a contract and swore an oath.

[QuickZ06]

Wow I might be alone in hoping he goes to jail. He signed a contract and swore an oath.

Yeah to defend the CONSTITUTION, not fight poor people in third world countries that we have no business being in. But yes, lets send him to jail and waste taxpayers money b.c he was not for the wars.

Don't let nationalism blind your patriotism.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

[ican'tvote]

If I were a family member.. I would be more than a little irritated that it took him so long to make contact.

[PierzStyx]

I think that the whole concept of "contract" might be confusing to you.

You can not be contractually bound to a job you can not ever leave of your own free will. That would be giving up your liberty and the whole point of unalienable rights is that you can neither forfeit them nor can they ever be taken away lawfully.

And his oath was first to The Constitution. If the President gives him orders to violate the Constitution, or uses the military to violate the Constitution, that voids the "contract" of his oath since his oath was only under those specific circumstances where orders are constitutional.

[QuickZ06]

You can not be contractually bound to a job you can not ever leave of your own free will. That would be giving up your liberty and the whole point of unalienable rights is that you can neither forfeit them nor can they ever be taken away lawfully.

And his oath was first to The Constitution. If the President gives him orders to violate the Constitution, or uses the military to violate the Constitution, that voids the "contract" of his oath since his oath was only under those specific circumstances where orders are constitutional.

Thank you, well said.

[mad cow]

You can not be contractually bound to a job you can not ever leave of your own free will. That would be giving up your liberty and the whole point of unalienable rights is that you can neither forfeit them nor can they ever be taken away lawfully.

And his oath was first to The Constitution. If the President gives him orders to violate the Constitution, or uses the military to violate the Constitution, that voids the "contract" of his oath since his oath was only under those specific circumstances where orders are constitutional.

I assume that the contract he signed stipulated that if you don't do this that or the other,THIS will happen.Don't like it,don't sign.

I also assume that it was pretty darn easy to get out of the AF in the '80s if you wanted to,perhaps with a less than honorable discharge.

Many civilian contracts are multi-year,and if you break them to preserve your "unalienable rights" or exercise your "own free will" you could end up in the brig.

[Kluge]

"one of the eight most wanted fugitives by the U.S. Air Force"

Seriously? Some kid who went AWOL is really that important to them? They need someone to make an example of?

[QuickZ06]

"one of the eight most wanted fugitives by the U.S. Air Force"

Seriously? Some kid who went AWOL is really that important to them? They need someone to make an example of?

I think he worked around intelligence that required a very high security access. I think he saw things that liberty minded folks would be ashamed of. He is now working for the Sweden government and they said they won't give him up.

[Kluge]

I think he worked around intelligence that required a very high security access. I think he saw things that liberty minded folks would be ashamed of. He is now working for the Sweden government and they said they won't give him up.

Good to know. Thanks.

[The Goat]

That's not quitting a job. That's lying to steal money from someone.



I can think of several million off the top of my head,here's one

If you contract with me to build you a house for $100,000 and I take your money and blow it in Vegas instead,should I be
"thrown in the brig"?

[Yieu]

Hemler said his political views of the military were changed when he became a pacifist. With that he walked away from the Air Force base without permission.

Good man. This is bravery.


I can think of several million off the top of my head,here's one

If you contract with me to build you a house for $100,000 and I take your money and blow it in Vegas instead,should I be
"thrown in the brig"?

No, that would be a civil suit over theft and breach of contract. Jail should be out of the picture for all of the scenarios mentioned in this thread.

[Kylie]

I can think of several million off the top of my head,here's one

If you contract with me to build you a house for $100,000 and I take your money and blow it in Vegas instead,should I be
"thrown in the brig"?


That's defrauding a person. In this particular situation, the only injured party is a non-person.


I don't see how the two correlate.

[mad cow]

That's not quitting a job. That's lying to steal money from someone.

Would it be quitting a job if I went to the lot and worked for 3 hours before getting on the plane to Vegas?

[mad cow]

In this situation the injured parties are the USAF and the taxpayer.
Businesses and the government can be injured parties and they are non-persons.

Edit,meant to quote Kylie.

[Kluge]

In this situation the injured parties are the USAF and the taxpayer.
Businesses and the government can be injured parties and they are non-persons.

Edit,meant to quote Kylie.

I'm not at all injured by soldiers going AWOL. I wish they all would.

[mad cow]

Good man. This is bravery.



No, that would be a civil suit over theft and breach of contract. Jail should be out of the picture for all of the scenarios mentioned in this thread.

I think jail is extreme in this instance,I also bet it's never going to happen.

[Yieu]

I'm not at all injured by soldiers going AWOL. I wish they all would.

Indeed. His service in the Air Force was service to his government, his service in the action of going AWOL was service to us (pacifists and non-interventionists), because if enough did it there wouldn't be wars.

And it was an extremely brave service to go AWOL, because due to his act of pacifism, violence could be enacted upon him unjustly.

This man is a hero. His heroism reminds me of the heroism of Desmond Doss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_doss), who was awarded the medal of honor.

[Yieu]

I think jail is extreme in this instance,I also bet it's never going to happen.

Jail is where AWOL people go (they shouldn't, but that is where the government puts them). Why would they make an exception? Especially so since jailing this man would send a "strong message" to those thinking of doing the same.

[mad cow]

I'm not at all injured by soldiers going AWOL. I wish they all would.

If all soldiers could go AWOL without punishment,you wouldn't have to worry about it,there would be no more soldiers.
Just like there would be no more building contractors if they could break contracts without punishment.

[Kluge]

If all soldiers could go AWOL without punishment,you wouldn't have to worry about it,there would be no more soldiers.
Just like there would be no more building contractors if they could break contracts without punishment.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

One takes an oath to the Constitution and the government turns them into killing machines, cannon fodder and psychologically traumatized human beings.

One signs a contract to build a damn house.

The soldier who goes AWOL is doing himself and innocent people a favor. The contractor who breaks his contract is a dick and won't be getting any more business.

[mad cow]

Jail is where AWOL people go (they shouldn't, but that is where the government puts them). Why would they make an exception? Especially so since jailing this man would send a "strong message" to those thinking of doing the same.

We will see,I bet he gets some sort of less than honorable discharge.

[mad cow]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

One takes an oath to the Constitution and the government turns them into killing machines, cannon fodder and psychologically traumatized human beings.

One signs a contract to build a damn house.

The soldier who goes AWOL is doing himself and innocent people a favor. The contractor who breaks his contract is a dick and won't be getting any more business.

The soldier that broke his contract with the AF won't be getting any more business from the AF,this I promise you.

[QuickZ06]

We will see,I bet he gets some sort of less than honorable discharge.

They will give him dishonorable for sure, but first they want answers and a lot of jail time and probably torture.

[Kluge]

The soldier that broke his contract with the AF won't be getting any more business from the AF,this I promise you.

:shrugs:

Doubt he cares, since he left in the first place. If I worked for a business that was forcing me to do immoral things and I'd signed a contract to work for them for x amount of time, I'd violate the living shit out of that contract, and all of the victims I would have made will not be victims. I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep.

You put contracts over ethics though, so...that's your choice. But it's a shitty one.

[Kluge]

They will give him dishonorable for sure, but first they want answers and a lot of jail time and probably torture.

And "mad cow" will probably cheer on the torture.

[mad cow]

Ron Paul served 5 years in the AF and the AF reserve,had he not,he would have been punished.
He fulfilled his contract.

[Kluge]

Ron Paul served 5 years in the AF and the AF reserve,had he not,he would have been punished.
He fulfilled his contract.

Sure. But he was a medic, he wasn't being pushed to do unethical things.

P.S. Appeal to authority is a shitty argument.

[mad cow]

Sure. But he was a medic, he wasn't being pushed to do unethical things.

P.S. Appeal to authority is a shitty argument.

Suggesting that I would ever cheer on torture is a shitty argument.

[Kluge]

Suggesting that I would ever cheer on torture is a shitty argument.

Hahahahaha! You got nuthin' left.

But I apologize, you'd probably want to be the one who was actually doing the torturing. :D

[Kluge]

Trollin' the trolls since 2007. Good times.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/096/044/trollface.jpg?1296494117

[mad cow]

Article one,section eight of the Constitution delegates to the Federal Government the power to raise and support Armies.Lets try to get the USA back to following the Constitution before you aim for a constitutional amendment outlawing the armed forces.I would not support such an amendment anyhow,but good luck.

[Yieu]

Many people going AWOL does not require a constitutional amendment to outlaw the armed forces, and I don't think anyone has suggested such an amendment as it would be weird and unnecessary.

[mad cow]

Many people going AWOL does not require a constitutional amendment to outlaw the armed forces, and I don't think anyone has suggested such an amendment as it would be weird and unnecessary.

And 99.9% of the armed forces NOT going AWOL suggests that the majority are happy to fulfill their contracts.

[Yieu]

And 99.9% of the armed forces NOT going AWOL suggests that the majority are happy to fulfill their contracts.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, it doesn't appear to be arguing against anything amy or I have mentioned.

[mad cow]

Hahahahaha! You got nuthin' left.

But I apologize, you'd probably want to be the one who was actually doing the torturing. :D

And you accuse ME of trolling.

[mad cow]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, it doesn't appear to be arguing against anything amy or I have mentioned.

Join the crowd,I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this post.
All I am saying is that if you contract to be a doctor,lawyer,indian chief,tinker,tailor,soldier,spy,fulfill your contract or face the possibility of some sort of judgement against you.

[Yieu]

Join the crowd,I'm not really sure what you are trying to say in this post.
All I am saying is that if you contract to be a doctor,lawyer,indian chief,tinker,tailor,soldier,spy,fulfill your contract or face the possibility of some sort of judgement against you.

Prison and other violations of the 8th Amendment* should be out of the question, and contracts with hefty penalties can be coercive behind the "voluntary" disguise.

"Voluntary to join, not voluntary to leave" -- I do not understand that.

*8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[mad cow]

Prison and other violations of the 8th Amendment* should be out of the question, and contracts with hefty penalties can be coercive behind the "voluntary" disguise.

"Voluntary to join, not voluntary to leave" -- I do not understand that.

*8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

At the time that the 8th amendment was ratified and say 50 years later,I would imagine that the punishment for desertion was much worse than this dude is going to receive.I have no problem with fitting punishment to modern norms,but please,George Washington would have hanged him.

[John F Kennedy III]

I opened this thread expecting it to be about George W. Bush

[Yieu]

At the time that the 8th amendment was ratified and say 50 years later,I would imagine that the punishment for desertion was much worse than this dude is going to receive.I have no problem with fitting punishment to modern norms,but please,George Washington would have hanged him.

Irrelevant to the wording of the Amendment. Just because the founders violated people's rights once they were in power does not mean we should not be afforded the rights as they are written (and I am aware they are not the source of rights, but they ought to respect our God-given rights).

[mad cow]

Irrelevant to the wording of the Amendment. Just because the founders violated people's rights once they were in power does not mean we should not be afforded the rights as they are written (and I am aware they are not the source of rights, but they ought to respect our God-given rights).

The founders did not consider Hanging or flogging or many years making little rocks out of big rocks cruel and unusual
punishment for the crime of desertion.What is considered cruel and unusual punishment today for the crime of desertion is what is considered cruel and unusual punishment today for the crime of desertion.If you commit the crime of desertion today,you might suffer the punishment of the crime of desertion today as the 8th amendment is interpreted by modern mores.

[Yieu]

The founders did not consider Hanging or flogging or many years making little rocks out of big rocks cruel and unusual
punishment for the crime of desertion.What is considered cruel and unusual punishment today for the crime of desertion is what is considered cruel and unusual punishment today for the crime of desertion.If you commit the crime of desertion today,you might suffer the punishment of the crime of desertion today as the 8th amendment is interpreted by modern mores.

And I understand prison being the response to be cruel and unusual, no matter what they think.

It is unreasonable and illogical. What is even the purpose of it? Just let them leave! It doesn't matter, just let them leave. Why be so vindictive?

[Demigod]

I would love to see an army where soldiers can just walk away if they don't want to do something or can just go home whenever they want.

[Demigod]

And I understand prison being the response to be cruel and unusual, no matter what they think.

It is unreasonable and illogical. What is even the purpose of it? Just let them leave! It doesn't matter, just let them leave. Why be so vindictive?

Because they can not leave when they want.Everyone is there for a purpose if everyone who wants just starts leaving when they want to it will put at risk everyone that wants to stay.

Imagine if before a defensive battle some units or soldiers in a unit decide that the positions they were given to defend are too dangerous and just leave.It is not about being vindictive it is about keeping discipline and order.Armies that are disciplined have always suffered less casualties.

Prison is a very bad form of punishment because if soldiers run it would most likely be due to fear for their life's.If the punishment involves going home and staying alive most will chose that .On the other hand if they know that deserting will only result in death they will stay and fight.

[mad cow]

And I understand prison being the response to be cruel and unusual, no matter what they think.

It is unreasonable and illogical. What is even the purpose of it? Just let them leave! It doesn't matter, just let them leave. Why be so vindictive?

Well,I hope that prison will never be considered cruel and unusual,I can conceive of much worse outcomes,witness A Clockwork Orange.As to the fate of the soldier that this thread is about,I have already stated that I don't think he will serve one day in jail,nor do I really think he should.

[Yieu]

Because they can not leave when they want.Everyone is there for a purpose if everyone who wants just starts leaving when they want to it will put at risk everyone that wants to stay.

Imagine if before a defensive battle some units or soldiers in a unit decide that the positions they were given to defend are too dangerous and just leave.It is not about being vindictive it is about keeping discipline and order.Armies that are disciplined have always suffered less casualties.

Indeed, that's kind of my point. We could end the wars today if everyone went AWOL. That would be a benefit to our nation. They could return home tomorrow if they went AWOL.

[Demigod]

Indeed, that's kind of my point. We could end the wars today if everyone went AWOL. That would be a benefit to our nation. They could return home tomorrow if they went AWOL.

And what if someone attacks the USA and they go AWOL ???

The chances of ending wars are the same with everyone becoming equal ,that is 0.

[Yieu]

And what if someone attacks the USA and they go AWOL ???

The chances of ending wars are the same with everyone becoming equal ,that is 0.

I just want these wars to end. I'm getting desperate and thinking of any and all peaceful options here. I cannot understand why we are continuing to kill people.

[Demigod]

I just want these wars to end. I'm getting desperate and thinking of any and all peaceful options here. I cannot understand why we are continuing to kill people.

The only way the army can end this wars is if the officers with complete units start deserting and even threatens to march on Washington.Which is almost 0 because most of today's US army officers are career officers.

For god sake the Supreme NATO commander Wesley Clark who was leading the bombing of Yugoslavia and the turning of Kosovo into a criminal state is now a director of a company that will invest in coal mining there.

What kind of a general is this ?

[DerailingDaTrain]

You can pick up a Swedish accent just by living around Swedish people?

[Kluge]

And you accuse ME of trolling.

You can't stick to one argument because it's weak, so you move on to another weak argument. I'm just having fun with ya now because it's not a challenging debate.

[Kluge]

I would love to see an army where soldiers can just walk away if they don't want to do something or can just go home whenever they want.

Me too. :D

[Kluge]

And what if someone attacks the USA and they go AWOL ???

The chances of ending wars are the same with everyone becoming equal ,that is 0.

Gosh. We'd just cease to exist.

[trey4sports]

Reminds me of Joeseph Dresnick. He was an american who deserted to the DPRK. He does an interview and talks about it. The video is on netflix, and its called crossing the line. Very, very good.

[FindLiberty]

...crossing the line...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTZDGS0ABt8

[QuickZ06]

And what if someone attacks the USA and they go AWOL ???

The chances of ending wars are the same with everyone becoming equal ,that is 0.

You must not know much about our history, only 12% of the people fought in the Revolutionary War. If we do ever get attacked on our soil, many will bear arms and fight to the death for the country, me included. And I would bet that number would be higher than 12% today. Just because the option is there does not mean they would choose it when it comes to protecting your way of life and family. Not busting down poor peoples doors in some foreign country that have no idea why we are there in the first place.

[PierzStyx]

I assume that the contract he signed stipulated that if you don't do this that or the other,THIS will happen.Don't like it,don't sign.

I also assume that it was pretty darn easy to get out of the AF in the '80s if you wanted to,perhaps with a less than honorable discharge.

Many civilian contracts are multi-year,and if you break them to preserve your "unalienable rights" or exercise your "own free will" you could end up in the brig.

"Don't like it, don't sign it.' You don't get it. It doesn't matter what you sign. Unalienable means just that, UNALIENABLE. Meaning IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot, even by your own consent, rightfully give up your own rights. And the government can't accept it, even when you agree to it.

As for breaking contract, he wasn't the one who did it. His contract is null and void the minute the President gives an unconstitutional military order, since that is the basis of his "contractual oath" to begin with. If you and I make an agreement where you I pay you $60 for a job and you never do the job, am I bound to pay you, who is in the wrong, who has broken our contract? No. And I shouldn't be punished for it either. Neither should he since the President first abrogated the contract.

[PaulConventionWV]

//

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow I might be alone in hoping he goes to jail. He signed a contract and swore an oath.

He realized getting into the contract was evil. If you sign a contract with the government to kill people systematically in concentration camps, as in Germany in WWII, do you think a German soldier who tried to violate that contract by having no part in the violence would be doing the right thing? Even if he swore an oath to Hitler? I mean, come on, sometimes violating your contract is just the right thing to do.

[PaulConventionWV]

You can not be contractually bound to a job you can not ever leave of your own free will. That would be giving up your liberty and the whole point of unalienable rights is that you can neither forfeit them nor can they ever be taken away lawfully.

And his oath was first to The Constitution. If the President gives him orders to violate the Constitution, or uses the military to violate the Constitution, that voids the "contract" of his oath since his oath was only under those specific circumstances where orders are constitutional.

Precisely. All contracts should have the option where either party can say "deal off" in order to protect their interests. Otherwise, it is just plain slavery.

[PaulConventionWV]

Would it be quitting a job if I went to the lot and worked for 3 hours before getting on the plane to Vegas?

It would be that AND lying to steal money. The difference is that what David did doesn't involve lying to steal money. Are you that thick?

[PaulConventionWV]

The soldier that broke his contract with the AF won't be getting any more business from the AF,this I promise you.

What "business"?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul served 5 years in the AF and the AF reserve,had he not,he would have been punished.
He fulfilled his contract.

Your point? What of it?

[PaulConventionWV]

And 99.9% of the armed forces NOT going AWOL suggests that the majority are happy to fulfill their contracts.

I think "happy" is an extremely subjective term, especially considering the suicide rate.

Haha... happy... riiiight. They're all happy. So happy they could die.

[asurfaholic]

And what if someone attacks the USA and they go AWOL ???

The chances of ending wars are the same with everyone becoming equal ,that is 0.

If some other country actually attacked us here at home, do you think that the men and women of this country would just go AWOL? I certainly don't. If someone is feeling that the job they are doing is immoral (how else to describe bombing the shit out of innocents in their homes) that is a good reason to turn and run.

There is a massive difference between us being a terroristic angel of death in another country and faithfully defending your own from the same.

One is immoral, the other is just.

[osan]

And you do realize, in that contract they have the powers to change it while you can do nothing about it right? Does not seem like a fair contract to me. But like you said, I don't know much on this subject :rolleyes:

I would say the contract is perfectly legitimate. The six elements are there. You volunteer to enter into it and you agree to the stipulation that they may change the terms of the agreement at will. If you don't like the contract, do not sign. It is as simple as that.

Being forced to "volunteer" as by conscription - THAT is problematic and tyrannical to be certain. Had he been drafted and skipped, I would have no problem with it. As it stands, he has a life, a family, and he should be left alone because his actions have done nothing to materially harm the Air Force, the "government", or the people of the USA. W e should not have a standing army in any case.

Leave the man alone.

[Kylie]

If some other country actually attacked us here at home, do you think that the men and women of this country would just go AWOL? I certainly don't. If someone is feeling that the job they are doing is immoral (how else to describe bombing the shit out of innocents in their homes) that is a good reason to turn and run.

There is a massive difference between us being a terroristic angel of death in another country and faithfully defending your own from the same.

One is immoral, the other is just.


Precisely.

+rep.

[thequietkid10]

You must not know much about our history, only 12% of the people fought in the Revolutionary War. If we do ever get attacked on our soil, many will bear arms and fight to the death for the country, me included. And I would bet that number would be higher than 12% today. Just because the option is there does not mean they would choose it when it comes to protecting your way of life and family. Not busting down poor peoples doors in some foreign country that have no idea why we are there in the first place.

We also had better weapons then the British did. Our riffles were more accurate then the British weapons. If the Chinese marched in with tanks, and bombers, and fighter jets, and battleships and we don't have a standing army they would beat the snot out of us. We might outlast them, but not without loosing millions upon millions of people and billions in wealth.

Further more non interventionism is not pacifism. If you think that just by bringing all of our troops home and disbanding the military, everyone is going to decide to never attack the United States again, well ask the people who lived around Pearl Harbor what they think of that idea.

[Kylie]

We also had better weapons then the British did. Our riffles were more accurate then the British weapons. If the Chinese marched in with tanks, and bombers, and fighter jets, and battleships and we don't have a standing army they would beat the snot out of us. We might outlast them, but not without loosing millions upon millions of people and billions in wealth.

Further more non interventionism is not pacifism. If you think that just by bringing all of our troops home and disbanding the military, everyone is going to decide to never attack the United States again, well ask the people who lived around Pearl Harbor what they think of that idea.




If we had disbanded our army(which is what is supposed to be done, per the Constitution) after WWII then we would not be dealing with the bullshit we are today.

Instead of disbanding, we changed the role of our military from a kick ass killing machine to the "changing hearts and minds" bullshit we have today. IF we had not been overthrowing other sovereign nations' governments and installing dictators who were "friendly" to us(i.e; gave us their resources and fucked their citizens) we would not have to be worried about terrrrrrissts now.

When you fuck around with people's lives that you have no business in, said people tend to get pissy. When you do it for decades, they get revenge.

If China had covertly come into our country and overthrown our government, installing some kind of communistic administration instead, would you sit idly by and allow it to continue? Or would you gun the fuck up and go out in a blaze of glory?

[heavenlyboy34]

But does it seem odd that they have "contracts" for something that is voluntary?Tacit contracts are used all the time (like copyright/patent). They are also a pet peeve of mine and I consider them illegitimate.

[Vanilluxe]

We also had better weapons then the British did. Our riffles were more accurate then the British weapons. If the Chinese marched in with tanks, and bombers, and fighter jets, and battleships and we don't have a standing army they would beat the snot out of us. We might outlast them, but not without loosing millions upon millions of people and billions in wealth.

Further more non interventionism is not pacifism. If you think that just by bringing all of our troops home and disbanding the military, everyone is going to decide to never attack the United States again, well ask the people who lived around Pearl Harbor what they think of that idea.

Actually we provoked Pearl Harbor. There is some thread around the forum that contains another debate.

[osan]

If the Chinese marched in with tanks, and bombers, and fighter jets, and battleships and we don't have a standing army they would beat the snot out of us. We might outlast them, but not without loosing millions upon millions of people and billions in wealth.

That is a very big "if". Were they to do it, to what end? They would not likely be able to conquer us short of being willing to exterminate us, which might not be out of the question given the Chinese contempt for life as displayed by their governments of the past 60 years. It is, however, a contingency I would not be too worried about and I am not at all convinced that bankrupting ourselves with the costs of a huge standing army is a good idea. A small one may be a matter of practical prudence in the face of the currently low global common denominator of which we are a part and a great cause. The soviets were the other culprits. I suspect that had the USA and USSR not engaged in the post WWI race to the bottom of the geopolitical barrel the world would be a far different and better place than it is at the moment. That, of course, would not be tolerable to power hunters and so we now get to live in a world seemingly headed toward squalor and misery for all.


Further more non interventionism is not pacifism. If you think that just by bringing all of our troops home and disbanding the military, everyone is going to decide to never attack the United States again, well ask the people who lived around Pearl Harbor what they think of that idea.

Here your reasoning fails a bit. First of all, I suspect you are making the common error of conflating pacifism with passivity (or to use the non-word, passivism). For example, I am a pacifist, meaning I endeavor to be on peaceable terms with everyone but I will not well tolerate trespass upon the territory of my rights. A passive person, however, will not fight to defend himself. Non-interventionism most certainly may be made manifest as pacifism, though I do see the point you are making, albeit a bit implicitly. The counterexample to that point are the Swiss. Hitler was champing at the bit to have Europe's version of West Virginia in his pocket, but even that lunatic had retained enough sense to know that an attack there would have ended in short work being made of German forces. It would be not much different here. China attacks and to what end? To inevitably be turned back with their tails between their legs? To be burned to the waterline where they stand as unwelcome guests on foreign soil? I do not believe them to be quite that stupid. Attempting to put down a force of 300 million pissed off and well-armed Americans would likely not turn out well for them at all.